People say a lot of things about Newt. One of my recent favorites was this: Newt is the type of guy who will walk into a room with a hand grenade, pull the pin, and say "Watch This!". That's Newt and I love it.

What most people fail to understand is that the GOP nominee will have to defeat 0bama and the lamestream media, who are already in the tank for and getting tingles up their legs for their Messiah. Who's better amongst the candidates to take on and defeat both simultaneously than Newt? The answer is nobody. This election is going to be the most vicious that any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes. Wouldn't you rather have a bombthrower who will go on the offensive instead of someone who will be forced to play defense? Amongst the candidates, Newt is the only one with the intellect, quick wit, and bombastic attitude to instantly turn the tables on the biased media when they attempt to play "gotcha" games. Furthermore, Newt is the only candidate guaranteed to destroy 0bama in any and all debates. He can articulate his conservative vision for this country and contrast it with 0bama's failed socialist policies like none other.

Is Newt the perfect candidate? Nope. But he is the only one capable of defeating both 0bama and the lamestream media IMO. And if anyone is naive enough to think that the media won't play a major role with their spin in this election, they are only kidding themselves.

_________________

January 13th, 2012, 5:22 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

slybri19 wrote:

People say a lot of things about Newt. One of my recent favorites was this: Newt is the type of guy who will walk into a room with a hand grenade, pull the pin, and say "Watch This!". That's Newt and I love it.

What most people fail to understand is that the GOP nominee will have to defeat 0bama and the lamestream media, who are already in the tank for and getting tingles up their legs for their Messiah. Who's better amongst the candidates to take on and defeat both simultaneously than Newt? The answer is nobody. This election is going to be the most vicious that any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes. Wouldn't you rather have a bombthrower who will go on the offensive instead of someone who will be forced to play defense? Amongst the candidates, Newt is the only one with the intellect, quick wit, and bombastic attitude to instantly turn the tables on the biased media when they attempt to play "gotcha" games. Furthermore, Newt is the only candidate guaranteed to destroy 0bama in any and all debates. He can articulate his conservative vision for this country and contrast it with 0bama's failed socialist policies like none other.

Is Newt the perfect candidate? Nope. But he is the only one capable of defeating both 0bama and the lamestream media IMO. And if anyone is naive enough to think that the media won't play a major role with their spin in this election, they are only kidding themselves.

I agree sly. It absolutely sucks that Huntsman and Santorum are doing so well. If they weren't in it I think that Newt's chances of prevailing increase three fold. We need a primary to the primary damn it!

I'll add... When I talk about Newt please understand that I'm not speaking in absolutes of character, and I'm not speaking in terms of "compared to the rest of the general population." I'm only suggesting that out of the likely Republican Candidates (or call them Republican Misfits if you'd like) he is the only viable candidate with the proper disposition to be a great leader. I'll agree that Newt has a HORRIBLE disposition when people vehemently disagree with him. Even recently when we said he wasn't going to "go negative," and when he was challenged on how he can be a "Capitalist" and argue against companies like Bain Capital you could tell he was super irritated and didn't like people defying his explanations. Still, when he is mad or "Mr. Hyde" if you will, he is still articulate, well spoken, and gets his point across. That's 1000X's better than Romney, who attacks the question poser instead of addresses the issue at hand.

I'd also like to add... In the mid-90's when Newt was Speaker he wasn't well liked and he wasn't known for compromise. That said, he got a DAMN LOT DONE, and IMO a lot of it was GREAT POSITIVE CHANGE. He led Congress for the last three budgets that were actually balanced, led Congress for what was a great time in economic prosperity, and he was successful in working with, not against Bill Clinton, the only rectum in the Country that he needed to kiss. I'll take that any day. Perhaps he could attract more bees with honey than vinegar, but I'd also pose that perhaps this is a point in time where compromise isn't an answer. Where Obama Care needs to be taken off of the table, and fiscal responsibility restored absolutely, rather than kicked down the road like the Democrats in Congress would prefer. Maybe his faults make him the best Candidate available? Maybe he'll be a one-term wrecking ball that sets us out on the right foot.

I agree with some of what you said. I don't agree that he's the only candidate who can articulate conservative values, but that's likely because I'm not super conservative. I'm conservative about some things, liberal about others. Fiscally, I tend to agree with Gingrich. But, he has such a dickish way of saying things that it doesn't take long for me to be turned off by him. I keep coming back to romney being the person who makes the most sense to me. I like people who have led organizations and/or governments before and done it successfully. Romney is the only one in the field who can say that.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Touchdown Jesus, while I also prefer someone with executive experience (Romney has done it in both the private and public sector), results and accomplishments also matter. What did Romney do as Governor of Massachusetts? He came up with RomneyCare, which was a blueprint for ObamaCare. He raised taxes multiple times. He appointed several liberal activist judges. His state ranked 47th in the nation in terms of job creation. He supported gun control legislation, gay marriage, and abortion. How is that conservative? It's obvious that he will say or do anything in order to get elected, whether it's the liberal state of Massachusetts or the conservative voting base of the Republican party. I like what he's saying now, but I don't trust him to follow through on it.

As for Newt, there is no denying his accomplishments as Speaker of the House or the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress via the Contract with America. He worked with President Clinton to get things done via bipartisanship, which is something Obama refuses to do. He (supposedly) balanced the budget for four years, reformed welfare, and cut taxes. Romney can't say that. Furthermore, while being Speaker isn't considered executive experience, it's as close as you can get to it on the national political level.

As an aside, I love the fact that he can state that he balanced the budget without the possibility of being called out on it by the media. They will never admit that Clinton never balanced a budget because it would eliminate one of their talking points and diminish his accomplishments. The fact is that while the public debt decreased for four years, the intragovernmental debt increased by an even greater amount in each of those years. In essence, they stole money from the social security trust fund and public sector union retirement accounts. In return, they received IOUs which added to the debt. Isn't it amazing how the media and the government refuses to tell the American people the truth? I simultaneously laugh and cry at the ignorance which is rampant in this country.

Touchdown Jesus, while I also prefer someone with executive experience (Romney has done it in both the private and public sector), results and accomplishments also matter. What did Romney do as Governor of Massachusetts? He came up with RomneyCare, which was a blueprint for ObamaCare. He raised taxes multiple times. He appointed several liberal activist judges. His state ranked 47th in the nation in terms of job creation. He supported gun control legislation, gay marriage, and abortion. How is that conservative? It's obvious that he will say or do anything in order to get elected, whether it's the liberal state of Massachusetts or the conservative voting base of the Republican party. I like what he's saying now, but I don't trust him to follow through on it.

As for Newt, there is no denying his accomplishments as Speaker of the House or the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress via the Contract with America. He worked with President Clinton to get things done via bipartisanship, which is something Obama refuses to do. He (supposedly) balanced the budget for four years, reformed welfare, and cut taxes. Romney can't say that. Furthermore, while being Speaker isn't considered executive experience, it's as close as you can get to it on the national political level.

As an aside, I love the fact that he can state that he balanced the budget without the possibility of being called out on it by the media. They will never admit that Clinton never balanced a budget because it would eliminate one of their talking points and diminish his accomplishments. The fact is that while the public debt decreased for four years, the intragovernmental debt increased by an even greater amount in each of those years. In essence, they stole money from the social security trust fund and public sector union retirement accounts. In return, they received IOUs which added to the debt. Isn't it amazing how the media and the government refuses to tell the American people the truth? I simultaneously laugh and cry at the ignorance which is rampant in this country.

I understand all those points about Gingrich. I just don't trust him to keep his temperament and not be impulsive and difficult to work with like he has always been in the past. A big part of being a good leader is temperament, and I don't trust Gingrich in that department. I do trust Romney there. Plus, like I said I'm not super conservative, so I'm ok with some of the things you mentioned about Romney.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

OK. I understand, appreciate, and respect all of your points. However, my primary focus is defeating 0bama and I'm not quite sure that Romney is up to that task. The easiest way to defeat the marxist, socialist, anti-American, useless piece of canine feces Hussein is to attack Obamacare and the government takeover of 1/6th of our economy. Romney can't do that. Furthermore, he's incapable of handling the media, which already have their "Hope and Change" kneepads on and are practicing their suction skills. Who would you rather have confronting the biased lamestream media? Mitt or Newt? If anyone truly feels that isn't an issue, our country is lost.

_________________

January 14th, 2012, 2:02 am

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Quote:

What most people fail to understand is that the GOP nominee will have to defeat 0bama and the lamestream media, who are already in the tank for and getting tingles up their legs for their Messiah. Who's better amongst the candidates to take on and defeat both simultaneously than Newt? The answer is nobody.

This doesn't make any sense.

Gingrich can't even withstand attacks from Ron Paul and Romney. So somehow he will be able to withstand attacks from Obama? What?

This posting is a bit misleading. Those companies aren't the ones that contributed. It is employees of those companies. Just like Ron Paul's top contributors show US Military branches, when obviously it's not those branches contributing, it's soldiers.

So while this is technically true that the top contributors to Romney come from these organizations, it's individuals, not the companies themselves.

Just sayin...

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

What most people fail to understand is that the GOP nominee will have to defeat 0bama and the lamestream media, who are already in the tank for and getting tingles up their legs for their Messiah. Who's better amongst the candidates to take on and defeat both simultaneously than Newt? The answer is nobody.

This doesn't make any sense.

Gingrich can't even withstand attacks from Ron Paul and Romney. So somehow he will be able to withstand attacks from Obama? What?

With all due respect, you obviously haven't watched as many of these debates as I have, nor did you understand my context. In a debate format, Newt has the ability to turn the tables on the typically liberal moderators and make them look foolish. No other candidate has done this consistently. Hell, he did it again tonight with Juan Williams. That's what I was talking about and not the PAC ads, which is an entirely different story. In any general election debate, the GOP candidate will have to battle both 0bama and the liberal moderators. Newt appears to be the only one capable of handling that challenge.

_________________

January 17th, 2012, 1:09 am

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

The debates don't determine the election.

Newt is lagging behind both Romney and Paul in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups with Obama. His electability argument doesn't hold.

Want me to spell it out to you what the 0bama attack ads on Romney will be? Here's a hint: Occupy Wall Street wasn't a sudden, grassroots movement. It was orchestrated by anarchists, socialists, communists, and Obama supporters ( kinda redundant, huh?) to ensure his re-election against Romney. Even though I hate Axelrod, he isn't stupid and he helped plan it. I know this, but the ignorant Republicans are falling into the trap. In a few months, everyone will know that I was right all along. But by then, it will be too late. Class Warfare will rule the day.

Elizabeth Warren, a diehard Marxist, who is running for the US Senate, and claiming that she started he movement?

How about the anarchist AdBusters from Canada who claim that they started it, as well?

It would be the wrong answer on both accounts.

_________________

January 17th, 2012, 3:00 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

So has Santorum done any better sense the field has narrowed?

At this point, with the money behind Obama, the media as well; I'm thinking that Gingrich is the best candidate to take on Obama. The media is doing it's best to sway or brain wash Mr. and Mrs. North America into the Romney camp, but he's the lighter version of what we have now, just happens to be from the Moderate R party is all.

Gingrich is more of a mad scientist, but he has the stones, and the record to take on this ugly machine that's been created and bring it down, and I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Conservative America will jump on board if we can get Romney to fall out or behind.

Santorum might be a good choice for VP at this point. He has some good ideas, and a decent record for "Standing up for his people" inspite of his beliefs. In fact, that's a relief in a way. Here in Indiana our Congressmen had 60% of the people of this State and his district telling him NO on Obamacare, and he voted for it anyway. That's not pursuing the wishes of your constituents, that's saving your own keister in Washington.

Btw, that has led me to a question. What is it that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid or even Obama have, that allows them to threaten their party into voting their way? I think of Stupak who was the last to cave on the Obamacare, who settled for the "Executive Order on Abortion" which allowed OC to become law, but the EO was erased in less than 6 mos. by Pennsylvania. What kind of pressure do they have that can make a Senator or Rep. cave? Why couldn't said Rep or Sen. go before the media and say, "Mr. and Mrs. America this is the type of pressure I am under to pass this law, and I believe it is fundementally wrong....." By doing so you call out the evil leadership, but represent the will of your people, and they are the ones who put you in power anyway.